Saturday, October 06, 2012

2008 Presidential electoral map, $100k+ only

One of my more instructive (and favorite, personally) posts shows hypothetical electoral maps from the 2008 presidential election when varying selected demographic restrictions are introduced. I'll do the same this November and as a refresher for doing so, here is a look at how things would've shaken out if only those from households earning at least six figures had been eligible to vote:

Half Sigma has on several occasions spoken of how the wealthy are increasingly turning away from the GOP and towards the Democratic party, repelled by the former's increasing Palinism. That sounds a bit dated nearly four years later, with the ascension of the tea party movement, the transformation of the Obama image from a SWPL into a racialist redistributor, the relegation of the former Alaska governor to bit segments on Fox News, and the elevation of a sharp, sober, successful, socially moderate guy to the top of the Republican ticket, but I'd argue that he oversold it at the time as well, as the map above illustrates.

24 comments:

HS is often excessively parochial in his views when he comments on American demographics, but the point is still fair. However, that's the highest income cutoff for which reliable state level data are available.

Looks like $100k is near the bottom of the top 20% of income. Interestingly, two is the median number of incomes in a $100k income household. Divided into quintiles by income, in the bottom quintile zero is the median number of incomes, and in the 2nd and 3rd from the bottom one is the median number. Are you thinking what I am thinking? Uh, huh, single moms/women. In the top two quintiles as well as the top 5%, the median number of incomes is two. Basically marriage and employment are the defining characteristics of higher income households.

So, income inequality is likely exacerbated by the high cost of family formation.

The national exit poll from 2008 did break down income brackets for 100-150k, 150-200, and 200k+. McCain eked ahead in the first two (50-51%), but Obama carried the wealthiest with 52%.

As Steve Sailer points out, the Republicans are the Middle Party, and the Democrats are the High-Low Party. Republicans clean up with the "merely" affluent: prosperous Main Street businessmen, doctors, engineers at the local power plant, pillar-of-the-community types.

The really rich used to be a heavily GOP niche, but now AFAICT the Democrats have a slight, or not so slight, advantage with this cohort (note that Wall Street pulled heavily for Obama last time around). I would be interested to see someone in HBD blogosphere do full analysis of the political leanings of the Forbes 400; I have my guesses though. 35% of them are Jewish; even subtracting Sheldon Adelson and his ilk still leaves a heck of a lot of billionaire Jews who are neolibs and lefties. Then there is Oprah, the late Steve Jobs (Gore acolyte), Buffet, Gates (who is a liberal, though I am not sure if he is a partisan Democrat since the Clinton Justice Department went after him), the Getty heir (at whose SF mansion Obama made his infamous remarks about bitter small-towners clinging to guns and religion), and many more.

Both parties are totally in thrall to the superrich and take their policy cues from the top: open borders, free trade, corporate welfare, bailouts, and a culture of debt.

Looks a lot like the 269-269 map that Nate Silver put up recently. Andrew Gelman has explained that a big difference between red and blue states is that well-off whites are more Republican in red states and less in blue states.

o/t Bryan Caplan talks about the scientific illiteracy reflected in the GSS in his WSJ review of James Flynn's new book today. I guess he has been reading your blog and Gene Expression.

Strangely enough, the point he is trying to make by referencing it doesn't follow. Knowing scientifically-determined facts is entirely different from using abstract classification, logic, and hypotheticals.

Not realistic to find data on, but: I would wonder how people voted based on the era their ancestors entered the USA. I suspect Ellis-Islanders may have supported Obama more than Colonials, for instance.

But actually I'm not sure: Obama seems to have a White support base of about 25-30% U.S. Whites, who will support him no matter what, and another 15% or so who could be persuaded to vote for him. (He got 43% of White vote, according to AP Exit Poll in '08; polling over the past four tears has put White support down below 30% at some points, though).

Perhaps 10% of his White hard-base are Jews, who gave him the most lopsided result among any White subgroup (Jews: Nearly 4-to-1 for Obama in '08). But that one's just too easy.

Who are the other members of the "White Obama hard-base"? Is there any way to determine it?

There is a very strong regional pattern within the white vote that far exceeds any amognst nonwhites. Romney's "lead" with white voters is misleading- it's mostly due to bloc voting by Southern whites. In places like my native Northwest, Cali, New England, etc., Democrats easily win the white vote these days. Seems imperialism, populist anti-intellectualism, race-to-the-bottom deregulation, deficit spending, and theocracy don't really resonate with all parts of white America. If the Sailer Strategy is ever going to succeed, the GOP will need to change more than it's immigration policy. Till then, we damnyankees will keep voting for the environment and abortion rights. Since issues such as these are the only practical differences between the two parties, why not?